Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 31 Mar 2022 11:26:13 +0800 | From | Mingbao Sun <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] nvme-tcp: support specifying the congestion-control |
| |
On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 10:46:08 +0300 Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me> wrote:
> >> As I said, TCP can be tuned in various ways, congestion being just one > >> of them. I'm sure you can find a workload where rmem/wmem will make > >> a difference. > > > > agree. > > but the difference for the knob of rmem/wmem is: > > we could enlarge rmem/wmem for NVMe/TCP via sysctl, > > and it would not bring downside to any other sockets whose > > rmem/wmem are not explicitly specified. > > It can most certainly affect them, positively or negatively, depends > on the use-case.
Agree. Your saying is rigorous.
> >> In addition, based on my knowledge, application specific TCP level > >> tuning (like congestion) is not really a common thing to do. So why in > >> nvme-tcp? > >> > >> So to me at least, it is not clear why we should add it to the driver. > > > > As mentioned in the commit message, though we can specify the > > congestion-control of NVMe_over_TCP via sysctl or writing > > '/proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_congestion_control', but this also > > changes the congestion-control of all the future TCP sockets on > > the same host that have not been explicitly assigned the > > congestion-control, thus bringing potential impaction on their > > performance. > > > > For example: > > > > A server in a data-center with the following 2 NICs: > > > > - NIC_fron-end, for interacting with clients through WAN > > (high latency, ms-level) > > > > - NIC_back-end, for interacting with NVMe/TCP target through LAN > > (low latency, ECN-enabled, ideal for dctcp) > > > > This server interacts with clients (handling requests) via the fron-end > > network and accesses the NVMe/TCP storage via the back-end network. > > This is a normal use case, right? > > > > For the client devices, we can’t determine their congestion-control. > > But normally it’s cubic by default (per the CONFIG_DEFAULT_TCP_CONG). > > So if we change the default congestion control on the server to dctcp > > on behalf of the NVMe/TCP traffic of the LAN side, it could at the > > same time change the congestion-control of the front-end sockets > > to dctcp while the congestion-control of the client-side is cubic. > > So this is an unexpected scenario. > > > > In addition, distributed storage products like the following also have > > the above problem: > > > > - The product consists of a cluster of servers. > > > > - Each server serves clients via its front-end NIC > > (WAN, high latency). > > > > - All servers interact with each other via NVMe/TCP via back-end NIC > > (LAN, low latency, ECN-enabled, ideal for dctcp). > > Separate networks are still not application (nvme-tcp) specific and as > mentioned, we have a way to control that. IMO, this still does not > qualify as solid justification to add this to nvme-tcp. > > What do others think?
Well, per the fact that the approach (‘ip route …’) proposed by Jakub could largely fit the per link requirement on congestion-control, so the usefulness of this patchset is really not so significant.
So here I terminate all the threads of this patchset.
At last, many thanks to all of you for reviewing this patchset.
| |